[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11612-11618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-6088]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket 92-77; FCC 98-9]
Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission adopted a combined Second Report and Order and
Order on Reconsideration which amends the Commission's rules and
policies governing the disclosure of rates that will be offered when an
away-from-home caller dials a non-access code operator service followed
by an interexchange number (0+ call). In the Report and Order, the
Commission amends its rules to require operator services providers
(OSPs) to disclose orally to such callers how to obtain the total cost
of a call, before the call is connected. The Order also adopts rules
governing the filing of OSP informational tariffs and adopts oral
disclosure requirements with respect to interstate collect calls
initiated by prison inmates. A carrier providing the latter service
must orally inform the party to be billed for such a call of its
identity and how to obtain its charges for a call before anyone may be
billed for the call. The Commission's decision is intended to make
consumers more informed of their right to receive such cost information
at the point of purchase from long-distance carriers before a call is
connected. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission denied
petitions for reconsideration of its earlier decision in this
proceeding concerning proprietary calling card practices of AT&T. That
decision declined to adopt a ``0+ in the Public Domain'' proposal urged
by AT&T competitors.
DATES: Effective July 1, 1998, except for the amendments to Sec. 64.703
and Sec. 64.710 which become effective October 1, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrien Auger, Enforcement Division,
Common Carrier Bureau (202) 418-0960.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Report and Order in CC Docket No. 92-77 [FCC 98-9], adopted on January
29, 1998 and released on January 29, 1998. This Report and Order
contains new or modified information collections subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB,
the general public, and other federal agencies are invited to comment
on the proposed or modified information collections contained in this
proceeding. The full text of the Second Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, International
Transcription Services, 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
SUMMARY OF SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
I. Background
1. The Commission has long been concerned about consumer
dissatisfaction over high charges and certain practices of many OSPs
for calls from public phones at away-from-home aggregator locations. In
1990, Congress responded to such consumer concerns by providing the
Commission and consumers with additional tools to address abusive
practices, through the passage of the Telephone Operator Consumer
Services Improvement Act of 1990 (TOCSIA or Section 226 of the
Communications Act.) Under TOCSIA, an aggregator must, among other
things, allow consumers the option of using an OSP of their choice by
dialing an 800 or other number to reach that OSP, rather than having to
use the particular OSP the aggregator has selected as its preferred or
presubscribed interexchange carrier (PIC) for long-
[[Page 11613]]
distance calls. Further, under TOCSIA, OSPs are required to file and
maintain tariffs informing consumers of, not only their interstate
charges, but also any applicable premises-imposed fee (PIF) or
aggregator surcharge collected by the OSP or permitted in an OSP's
contracts with aggregators.
2. The Commission initiated Phase I of the instant proceeding in
May, 1992 to examine alleged competitive inequities arising from AT&T's
issuance of its proprietary card and short term proposals by many of
AT&T's competitors to restrict the use of its proprietary carrier card
with 0+ access. At the same time, the Commission also initiated an
investigation of long term issues related to certain interexchange
carrier (IXC) calling card practices, including a billed party
preference (BPP) routing system for all 0+ interLATA calls (Phase II).
In November, 1992, the Commission released a Report and Order with
respect to Phase I of this proceeding, declining to adopt a ``0+ in the
public domain'' proposal or other alternative interim remedies
proffered by AT&T's competitors. In Phase II, the Commission addressed
on a generic basis, the continuing complaints and concerns over the
high level of charges billed consumers by many OSPs.
3. On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996
Act) was enacted. The goal of the 1996 Act is to establish ``a pro-
competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework'' in order to make
available to all Americans advanced telecommunications and information
technologies and services ``by opening all telecommunications markets
to competition.'' The 1996 Act requires that the Commission forbear
from applying any provision of the Communications Act, or any of the
Commission's regulations, to a telecommunications carrier or
telecommunications service, or class thereof, if the Commission makes
certain specified findings with respect to such provisions or
regulations.
4. On June 6, 1996, the Commission released a Second Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking in the instant proceeding seeking comment on
whether, under the 1996 Act, it should forbear from applying the
informational tariff filing requirements of section 226 of the
Communications Act. The Commission also sought comment on whether to
require all OSPs to disclose their rates on all 0+ calls.
Alternatively, the Commission sought comment on a tentative conclusion
that it should: (1) Establish benchmarks for OSPs' consumer rates and
associated charges that reflect what consumers expect to pay and (2)
require OSPs that charge rates and/or allow related premises-imposed
fees whose total is greater than a given percentage above a composite
of the 0+ rates charged by the three largest interstate, interexchange
carriers to disclose the applicable charges for the call to consumers
orally before connecting a call. Further, with respect to collect calls
initiated by prison inmates, the Commission sought comment on whether
the public interest would be better served by some alternative to a
billed party preference for routing operator service calls.
II. Discussion
5. The Commission believes that adoption of the order will result
in better informed consumers, foster a more competitive marketplace,
and better serve the public interest than if it were to establish price
controls or rate benchmarks. It also declined to implement a billed
party preference (BPP) approach to the problem of high rates. It also
denied petitions for reconsideration of its Phase I Order in this
proceeding, where it declined to adopt, a 0+ in the public domain
policy, in which OSPs would be entitled to access the calling card
validation databases of all carriers.
6. In the order the Commission also concluded that it should not,
at this time, either waive or forebear from enforcing the requirement
that OSPs file informational tariffs pursuant to section 226 of the
Communications Act. It amended its rules, however, to increase the
usefulness of informational tariffs by requiring that such tariffs
include specific rates expressed in dollars and cents as well as
applicable per-call aggregator surcharges or other per-call fees, if
any, that are collected from consumers.
III. Conclusion
7. The Commission amended its rules to require OSPs to provide
additional oral information to away-from-home callers, disclosing how
to obtain the cost of a call, including any aggregator surcharge, for a
non-access code operator service interstate call from that aggregator
location, before such a call is connected. The consumer has an option
to bypass receipt of such cost information. The Commission also amended
its rules to require carriers providing interstate service to prison
inmates to orally disclose their identity to the party to be billed for
such calls and, if such party elects to receive rate quotes for the
call, to orally disclose the charges for the call before connecting the
call.
IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
8. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the OSP
Reform Notice. The Commission sought written public comments on the
proposals in the OSP Reform Notice, including on the IRFA. The
Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Order
conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract With America
Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847
(1996). The Commission is issuing this Order to protect consumers from
excessive charges in connection with interstate 0+ operator services
for payphone and prison inmate calls by ensuring that they are aware of
their right to ascertain the specific cost for such calls so that they
may hang up before incurring any charge that they believe is excessive.
i. Need for and Objectives of this Report and Order and the Rules
Adopted Herein
9. In the 1996 Act, Congress sought to establish ``a pro-
competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework'' for the United
States telecommunications industry. One of the principal goals of the
telephony provisions of the 1996 Act is promoting increased competition
in all telecommunications markets, including those that are already
open to competition, particularly long-distance services markets.
10. In this Second Report and Order, we adopt rules requiring
carriers to orally disclose to consumers how to obtain the cost of
operator services for interstate calls from aggregator locations and
from prison inmate-only telephones. The objective of the rules adopted
in this Order is to implement as quickly and effectively as possible
the national telecommunications policies embodied in the 1996 Act and
to promote the development of competitive, deregulated markets
envisioned by Congress. In doing so, we are mindful of the balance that
Congress struck between this goal of bringing the benefits of
competition to all consumers and its concern for the impact of the 1996
Act on small business entities.
ii. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in
Response to the IRFA
11. In the OSP Reform Notice, the Commission performed an IRFA. In
the IRFA, the Commission found that the rules it proposed to adopt in
this
[[Page 11614]]
proceeding may have an impact on small business entities as defined by
section 601(3) of the RFA. In addition, the IRFA solicited comment on
alternatives to the proposed rules that would minimize the impact on
small entities consistent with the objectives of this proceeding.
iii. Comments on the IRFA
12. Only one comment specifically addressed the Commission's IRFA.
ACTA, a national trade association representing interexchange carriers,
strongly supports adoption of a price disclosure requirement for all 0+
calls to provide consumers with the information necessary to make
informed choices, thus doing away with the need for alternative
proposals setting benchmark rates to trigger oral disclosure
requirements. ACTA asserts that adoption of the alternative benchmark
proposal would lead to anti-competitive and discriminatory results and
therefore does not comply with the RFA.
13. In support thereof, ACTA asserts: that basing benchmarks on the
rates of the three largest IXCs (the Big Three) is unsound because it
ignores greater underlying costs borne by smaller carriers and economic
disparities which exist between the Big Three carriers and all other
OSPs; that the Big Three may recover their costs through cross-
subsidization and arbitrary cost allocations that are possible because
of their multi-market operations, whereas small providers can only
recover their costs directly through rates charged consumers; that
because all or most small carriers will be required to make oral
disclosures, the public will be conditioned to associate small
providers with excessive rates; that OSPs will be forced to charge
rates below the Big Three and below their own costs, plus a reasonable
profit, to get consumers to use their services; that the benchmark
proposal thus has a confiscatory effect; and, accordingly, the already
competitively disadvantaged smaller OSPs will not be able to sustain
themselves in the marketplace, contrary to broad general policies
seeking greater participation by smaller companies in competing in the
OSP market, and the more specific policy that the Commission must apply
in its RFA analysis.
14. Further, ACTA contends that proposed benchmark rate elements
such as time of day and distance do not affect underlying costs, are
contrary to the industry's growing reliance on nationwide flat rates,
and are inappropriate and unduly burdensome on small businesses.
Moreover, ACTA contends that the list of characteristics proposed by
the Commission does not take into account actual costs necessary to
compete in the OSP marketplace such as PIFs and commissions, further
skewing the competitive environment adversely to small businesses.
According to ACTA, a benchmark margin of two to three times that of the
Big Three benchmark carriers is needed to cover differences in
underlying costs, not the 15 percent margin on which the Commission
sought comment. ACTA also contends that the proposed benchmark
methodology provides the benchmark carriers with the opportunity to
engage in anti-competitive conduct and predatory pricing.
15. Although not specifically filing an IRFA analysis, other
commenters oppose adoption of rules that would unduly burden small
businesses. Cleartel/ConQuest assert, arguendo, that even if a rate
benchmark could be justified on the basis of consumer expectations, any
standard disclosure that only applies to the smaller OSPs, and not to
the three largest, would be arbitrary and discriminatory, would place
an uneven burden on smaller OSPs, and would stigmatize all carriers
other than the big three for the traveling public. NTCA asserts that
industry-wide mandated BPP deployment is not economically feasible and
would adversely affect small and rural LECs.
Discussion
16. We agree with ACTA's views in regard to our IRFA and have
concluded that the minimum rules adopted herein are necessary to
protect consumers and will not unduly burden small OSPs or other small
business entities. Such rules will aid consumers, including small
business entities, avoid incurring excessive charges for 0+ operator
services. The rules also provide OSPs and potential OSP competitors,
including small business firms, a level playing field in that they
apply equally to all OSPs, and, unlike benchmark proposals, do not
discriminate against smaller OSP companies. Further, we are terminating
our inquiry into BPP as urged by NTCA on behalf of small and rural
LECs. Moreover, as urged by many commenters, including small business
entities, we have not adopted various benchmark proposals or other
price control rules set forth in this proceeding. Based on the record
in this proceeding, we conclude that, contrary to the initial tentative
conclusion in OSP Reform Notice, for the Commission to engage in price
regulation of OSPs' rates, including benchmark regulation, would
involve micro-managing the rates of nondominant carriers, including
hundreds of small business companies. Such regulation would be the
antithesis of the deregulatory thrust of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
and the 1996 Act.
iv. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply
17. The rules adopted require that hundreds of nondominant
interexchange carriers implement certain information disclosure
procedures regarding their rates, and any related fees of the owners of
the premises where the telephone instrument is located. Small entities
may feel some economic impact in additional message production,
recording costs, and equipment retrofitting or replacement costs due to
the policies and rules adopted. Small providers of operator services
also may experience greater live operator costs initially until
automated terminal equipment and network systems are modified to
replace the need for intervention of live operators.
18. For the purposes of this analysis, we examine the relevant
definition of ``small entity'' or ``small business'' and apply this
definition to identify those entities that may be affected by the rules
adopted in this Second Report and Order. The RFA defines a ``small
business'' to be the same as a ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, unless the Commission has developed
one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities. A
``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets
any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (the SBA). The SBA has defined a small business for
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) category 4813 (Telephone
Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they
have fewer than 1,500 employees. We first discuss generally the total
number of telephone companies falling within this SIC category. Then,
we refine further those estimates and discuss the number of carriers
falling within relevant subcategories.
19. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The United States
Bureau of the Census (``the Census Bureau'') reports that, at the end
of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone
services, as defined therein, for at least one year. This number
contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local
exchange carriers, interexchange
[[Page 11615]]
carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, operator
service providers, pay telephone operators, personal communications
service (PCS) providers, covered specialized mobile radio (SMR)
providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497
telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities, small
interexchange carriers, or resellers of interexchange services, because
they are not ``independently owned and operated.'' For example, a PCS
provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more
than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business.
It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497
telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms that
may be affected by this Order.
20. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. The SBA has developed
a definition of small entities for telecommunications companies other
than radiotelephone (wireless) companies (Telephone Communications,
Except Radiotelephone). The Census Bureau reports that there were 2,321
such telephone companies in operation for at least one year at the end
of 1992. According to the SBA's definition, a small business telephone
company other than a radiotelephone company is one employing fewer than
1,500 persons. All but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone companies
listed by the Census Bureau, 2,295 companies were reported to have
fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had
more than 1500 employees, there would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone
companies that might qualify as small entities based on these
employment statistics. Because it seems certain, however, that some of
these carriers are not independently owned and operated, this figure
necessarily overstates the actual number of non-radiotelephone
companies that would qualify as ``small business concerns'' under the
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate using this methodology that
there are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications
companies (other than radiotelephone companies) that may be affected by
the decisions and rules adopted in this Order.
21. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to
providers of interexchange services (IXCs). The closest applicable
definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies
other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable
source of information regarding the number of interexchange carriers
nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that the
Commission collects annually in connection with the TRS Worksheet.
According to our most recent data, 130 companies reported that they
were engaged in the provision of interexchange services. Although it
seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned
and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this
time to estimate with greater precision the number of interexchange
carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's
definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 130
small entity interexchange carriers that may be affected by the
decisions and rules adopted in this Order.
22. Resellers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a
definition of small entities specifically applicable to resellers. The
closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for all telephone
communications companies. The most reliable source of information
regarding the number of resellers nationwide of which we are aware
appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the
TRS Worksheet. According to our most recent data, 260 companies
reported that they were engaged in the resale of telephone services.
Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not
independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we
are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number
of resellers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's
definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 260
small entity resellers that may be affected by the decisions and rules
adopted in this Order.
23. Operator Service Providers. Carriers engaged in providing
interstate operator services from aggregator locations (OSPs) currently
are required under section 226 of the Communications Act to file and
maintain informational tariffs at the Commission. The number of such
tariffs on file thus appears to be the most reliable source of
information of which we are aware regarding the number of OSPs
nationwide, including small business concerns, that will be affected by
decisions and rules adopted in this Order. As of August 19, 1997,
approximately 630 carriers had informational tariffs on file at the
Commission. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are
not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500
employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater
precision the number of OSPs that would qualify as small business
concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there
are fewer than 630 small entity OSPs that may be affected by the
decisions and rules adopted in this Order.
24. Local Exchange Carriers. Consistent with our prior practice, we
shall continue to exclude small incumbent providers of local exchange
services (LECs) from the definition of ``small entity'' and ``small
business concerns'' for the purpose of this FRFA. Because any small
incumbent LECs that may be subject to these rules are either dominant
in their field of operations or are not independently owned and
operated, consistent with our prior practice, they are excluded from
the definition of ``small entity'' and ``small business concerns.''
Accordingly, our use of the terms ``small entities'' and ``small
businesses'' does not encompass small incumbent LECs. Out of an
abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis
purposes, we will consider small incumbent LECs within this analysis
and use the term ``small incumbent LECs'' to refer to any incumbent
LECs that arguably might be defined by the SBA as ``small business
concerns.''
25. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition
of small LECs. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for
telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless)
companies (SIC 4813) (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone)
as previously detailed above. Our alternative method for estimation
utilizes the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS
Worksheet. This data provides us with the most reliable source of
information of which we are aware regarding the number of LECs
nationwide. According to our most recent data, 1,347 companies reported
that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services.
Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not
independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we
are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number
of incumbent LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than
1,347 small LECs (including small incumbent LECs) that may be affected
by the rules adopted in this Order.
26. In addition, the rules adopted in this Order may affect
companies that analyze information contained in OSPs'
[[Page 11616]]
tariffs. The SBA has not developed a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to companies that analyze tariff information.
The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for Information
Retrieval Services (SIC Category 7375). The Census Bureau reports that,
at the end of 1992, there were approximately 618 such firms classified
as small entities. This number contains a variety of different types of
companies, only some of which analyze tariff information. We are unable
at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of such
companies and those that would qualify as small business concerns under
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than
618 such small entity companies that may be affected by the decisions
and rules adopted in this Order.
v. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
27. The rules adopted require carriers to disclose audibly to
consumers how to obtain the price of a call before it is connected. In
this section of the FRFA, we analyze the projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements that may apply to
small entities as a result of this Order. As a part of this discussion,
we mention some of the types of skills that will be needed to meet the
new requirements.
28. Nondominant interexchange carriers, including small nondominant
interexchange carriers, will be required to provide oral information to
away-from-home callers, advising them how to obtain the cost of an
interstate 0+ call, and similarly to disclose to the party to be billed
for collect calls from telephones set aside for use by prison inmates
how to obtain the cost of the call before they could be billed for such
calls. This change in the manner of conducting their business may
require the use of technical, operational, accounting, billing, and
legal skills.
vi. Significant Alternatives and Steps Taken to Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities Consistent
With Stated Objectives
29. In this section, we describe the steps taken to minimize the
economic impact of our decisions on small entities and small incumbent
IXCs, including the significant alternatives considered and rejected.
To the extent that any statement contained in this FRFA is perceived as
creating ambiguity with respect to our rules or statements made in
preceding sections of this Order, the rules and statements set forth in
those preceding sections shall be controlling.
30. We believe that our action requiring carriers to orally
disclose how to obtain the price of their interstate 0+ operator
services up front at the point of purchase will facilitate the
development of increased competition in the interstate, domestic,
interexchange market, thereby benefitting all consumers, some of which
are small business entities. Specifically, we find that the rules
adopted herein with respect to interstate, domestic, interexchange 0+
services will enhance competition among OSPs, promote competitive
market conditions, and achieve other objectives that are in the public
interest, including establishing market conditions that more closely
resemble an unregulated environment. The decision not to require
detariffing of OSP informational tariffs will also allow businesses,
including small business entities, that audit and analyze information
contained in tariffs to continue.
31. We have rejected several alternatives to the additional oral
disclosure requirements and rules adopted herein, including proposals
(1) to establish a costly billed party preference system for 0+ calls
from aggregator and prison locations; (2) to micro-manage nondominant
carriers' prices for such calls, including proposals to cap rates,
establish annual FCC benchmarks, and to require cost justification for
rates that exceed such benchmarks; (3) requiring oral warnings to
prospective consumers comparing a carrier's rates with lower rates of
the largest carriers; and (4) mandating 0+ in the public domain.
Rejection of these alternatives helps to ensure that small carriers
will not be unnecessarily burdened. The rules adopted herein are
applicable only to limited interexchange 0+ calls from payphones, or
other aggregator locations, and from inmate phones in correctional
institutions. They are not applicable to international calls,
intrastate calls, and interstate 0+ calls made by callers from their
regular home or business. The rules also are inapplicable to calls that
are initiated by dialing an access code prefix, such as 10333 or 1-800-
877-8000, whereby callers may circumvent placing the call through the
long-distance carrier that is presubscribed for that line.
vii. Report to Congress
32. The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Act Analysis, along with this Second Report and Order, in a
report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
33. This Report and Order contains either a new or modified
information collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collections contained in this Order, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-12. Written comments by the
public on the information collections are due 30 days after date of
publication in the Federal Register. OMB notification of action is due
May 11, 1998. Comments should address: (1) Whether the new or modified
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the respondents including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
OMB Approval Number: 3060-0717.
Title: Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls, CC Docket
No. 92-77 (47 CFR Sections 64.703(a), 64.709, and 64.710).
Form No.: N/A.
Type of Review: Revised collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for profit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Section/title No. of Est. time per response annual
responses burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
64.703(a)(4).......................... 617,000,000 6-8 secs................................... 13,711
64.709................................ 330 50 hours................................... 16,500
64.710................................ 570 4 hours.................................... 2,280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11617]]
Total Annual Burden: 32,491 burden hours.
Estimated Costs Per Respondents: $600.
Needs and Uses: The Commission adopts rules to further the goals of
47 U.S.C. Section 226: (1) To protect consumers from unfair and
deceptive practices relating to their use of operator services for
interstate calls; and (2) to ensure that consumers have the opportunity
to make informed choices in making such calls. Pursuant to
Sec. 64.703(a) operator service providers (OSPs) are required to
disclose, audibly and distinctly to the consumer, at no charge and
before connecting any interstate call, how to obtain rate quotations,
including any applicable surcharges, if the call is to be placed
through the carrier selected by the payphone or premises owner. Section
64.709 codifies the requirements for OSPs to file informational tariffs
with the Commission. Section 64.710 requires providers of interstate
operator services to inmates at correctional institutions to identify
themselves, audibly and distinctly, to the party to be billed for the
call and also disclose immediately thereafter to that party how he or
she, without having to hang up to dial a separate number, may obtain
the charges for the call, before the carrier may connect, and bill for,
a call.
For further information contact: For additional information
concerning the information collections contained in this Report and
Order contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at
[email protected].
VI. Ordering Clauses
34. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
10, 201-205, 215, 218, 226, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 215, 218, 226,
254, that the policies, rules, and requirements set forth herein are
adopted.
35. It is further ordered that 47 CFR Part 64, Subpart B is
amended, effective July 1, 1998, except for Secs. 64.703(a)(4) and
64.710 which become effective October 1, 1999.
36. It is further ordered that the request by Intellicall, Inc.,
filed March 21, 1997, seeking exemption of its Ultratel payphones from
the rules adopted herein is denied.
37. It is further ordered that the Office of Public Affairs,
Reference Operations Division, shall mail a copy of this Report and
Order to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, in accordance with section 603(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603(a)(1981).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers, Consumer protection,
Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
Part 64 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or
apply sections 201, 218, 226, 228, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077;
47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 226, 228, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 64.703 is amended by removing the word ``and'' at the
end of paragraph (a)(2), removing the ``.'' at the end of the paragraph
(a)(3)(iii) and adding in its place ``; and'' and by adding new
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.703 Consumer information.
(a) * * *
(4) Disclose, audibly and distinctly to the consumer, at no charge
and before connecting any interstate, domestic, interexchange non-
access code operator service call, how to obtain the total cost of the
call, including any aggregator surcharge, or the maximum possible total
cost of the call, including any aggregator surcharge, before providing
further oral advice to the consumer on how to proceed to make the call.
The oral disclosure required in this subsection shall instruct
consumers that they may obtain applicable rate and surcharge quotations
either, at the option of the provider of operator services, by dialing
no more than two digits or by remaining on the line.
3. Section 64.709 is added to subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 64.709 Informational tariffs.
(a) Informational tariffs filed pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 226(h)(1)(A)
shall contain specific rates expressed in dollars and cents for each
interstate operator service of the carrier and shall also contain
applicable per call aggregator surcharges or other per call fees, if
any, collected from consumers by the carrier or any other entity.
(b) Per call fees, if any, billed on behalf of aggregators or
others, shall be specified in informational tariffs in dollars and
cents.
(c) In order to remove all doubt as to their proper application,
all informational tariffs must contain clear and explicit explanatory
statements regarding the rates, i.e., the tariffed price per unit of
service, and the regulations governing the offering of service in that
tariff.
(d) Informational tariffs shall be accompanied by a cover letter,
addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, explaining the purpose of
the filing.
(1) The original of the cover letter shall be submitted to the
Secretary without attachments, along with FCC Form 159, and the
appropriate fee to the Mellon Bank, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
(2) Copies of the cover letter and the attachments shall be
submitted to the Secretary's Office, the Commission's contractor for
public records duplication, and the Chief, Tariff and Price Analysis
Branch, Competitive Pricing Division.
(e) Any changes to the tariff shall be submitted under a new cover
letter with a complete copy of the tariff, including changes.
(1) Changes to a tariff shall be explained in the cover letter but
need not be symbolized on the tariff pages.
(2) Revised tariffs shall be filed pursuant to the procedures
specified in Sec. 64.703(c).
4. Section 64.710 is added to subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 64.710 Operator services for prison inmate phones.
(a) Each provider of inmate operator services shall:
(1) Identify itself, audibly and distinctly, to the consumer before
connecting any interstate, domestic, interexchange telephone call and
disclose immediately thereafter how the consumer may obtain rate
quotations, by dialing no more than two digits or remaining on the
line, for the first minute of the call and for additional minutes,
before providing further oral advice to the consumer how to proceed to
make the call;
(2) Permit the consumer to terminate the telephone call at no
charge before the call is connected; and
(3) Disclose immediately to the consumer, upon request and at no
charge to the consumer--
(i) The methods by which its rates or charges for the call will be
collected; and
(ii) The methods by which complaints concerning such rates, charges
or collection practices will be resolved.
(b) As used in this subpart:
(1) Consumer means the party to be billed for any interstate,
domestic,
[[Page 11618]]
interexchange call from an inmate telephone;
(2) Inmate telephone means a telephone instrument set aside by
authorities of a prison or other correctional institution for use by
inmates.
(3) Inmate operator services means any interstate
telecommunications service initiated from an inmate telephone that
includes, as a component, any automatic or live assistance to a
consumer to arrange for billing or completion, or both, of an
interstate telephone call through a method other than:
(i) Automatic completion with billing to the telephone from which
the call originated; or
(ii) Completion through an access code used by the consumer, with
billing to an account previously established with the carrier by the
consumer;
(4) Provider of inmate operator services means any common carrier
that provides outbound interstate, domestic, interexchange operator
services from inmate telephones.
[FR Doc. 98-6088 Filed 3-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P